About last post…

I’ve put up this cartoon in light of my recent post about bible-talk leaders in the ICOC.
BTLs and disciplers had several functions, but one was to keep the army marching in a
tight operation for evangelism and accountability. I assume most discipling churches these days are not
as controlling and obsessive with church growth as we were then. I drew the cartoon to kind of demonstrate
the efficiency of the discipling system from top leadership down to the grass roots which aslo shows
 how the grace of God and the “spirit” of a church can be neglected or cast to one side.

About Persuasion II: Down BTL Memory Lane (Continued from “Persuasion I”)

 This is the second post I’m writing about my experience in the ICOC in light of a British program that looked at methods of persuasion in modern society, such as that from advertising, propaganda and cults. In this post I thought I’d digress a little to go down memory lane, as I said previously I believe that it’s the one-on-one discipling system that held everything together, and a key factor in that as I see is the middle level of the bible-talk leaders.

 

There was a time during the ICOC when I was appointed assistant bible-talk leader at the campus I was studying. I remember a young christian I discipled who was an overseas student. He was under enormous pressure doing an engineering degree, and I remember disctinctly being instructed from my then zone-leader to make sure he came to a specail three-night even around the end of term. He didn’t last two long as a christian, maybe 10-12 months, for most of the time I was passing on the pressure for him to be “more committed”.

 

It seemed ridiculous to me at the time, it was obvious after a while he didn’t want to come out of the sincerity of his heart, and if he wasn’t sincere, what was he really coming for? To show his face? That three-night event pretty much put an end to his involvement in the church. Do you think I said anything about my concerns to the zone-leader? Are you kidding? I’d witness him spend hours in long BT leader sessions often rebuking some other poor BTL on his stubborn attitude or other character flaw.

 

(As previously mentioned “BTL” means bible-talk leader: these were the poor sods sandwiched between the full-time ministry and the average members. Generally it was evident to me they sacrificed the most, for they had to work or study and do the discipling “dirty work” in ensuring all their members of the bible talk (could vary from 3 to 15 people) were committed, were bringing visitors, were paying contribution and so forth. In fact, life wasn’t too bad for the average members who may join for the social benefits or like being counselled -it was often the poor BTL who got rebuked if there weren’t enough visitors in for their group. )

 

I remember BT leader’s meetings ( I was assistant BT leader, so I could witness it but was often shielded from having my pants rebuked-off) which took up the whole Sunday afternoon and evening. It would start, after a long period of fellowship, in a hired amphitheatre at a university. This was a church of around five hundred, so I guess there would’ve been around 50 BT leaders -one brother and one sister leading each bible-talk. A new church leader had been brought in “to turn the church around”, so he introduced a new system of accountability. In the amphitheatre, in front of all the other BT leaders and the staff, each person in turn had to say how many visitors came to church that morning. They’d just say two numbers -one for the members of the bible talk, and one for the visitors. So maybe someone would say “five, three”, which meant three visitors for a BT of five people. You’d here someone say “four, seven” and there’d be a gasp of admiration, because that would be almost “two-for-one” visitors. Then another person would say “six, zero” and there would be this absolutely deadening silence (as the evangelist noted down all these stats in his book). Often he may then ask the poor-performing bible-talk leader “why?”, in which he’d humbly give reasons “so-and-so brother isn’t doing well, another member didn’t turn up, so-and-so had exams etc…”and then he may be given feedback in front of all.

 

After the dreaded stats (from Sunday morning getting visitors, the “bums on seats” was the primary obsession of the BT leader) the evangelist would give a lesson, and then everyone would split up into their zone to get more feedback from their zone leaders. These sessions could be quick and encouraging if the zone did well, but often there was a gruelling question, feedback and rebuking time for the poor BT leader who wasn’t doing well. Now, here things were often up to the integrity of the zone-leader. He may give feedback on spiritual things or people’s struggles with sin in a genuine desire to help them, or if he’s just a product of the system will base his feedback on stats.

 

However it must be said that being part of the BTL level could have its own rewards. One felt charged with a higher responsibility having to take care of the members in his bible talk, and there was a camaraderie between bible-talk leaders as they shared similar experiences of being rebuked or victories in studies. They felt the same pressures, they did special things together with the zone-leader, they got extra teachings and got one-on-one time with their heroes in the ministry. If a BTL did exceptionally well, he or she could be considered for the ministry.

 

Being a BTL suited some people who were highly motivated, who liked responsibilities, goals and to generally keep very busy. And as a leader of a small group of Christians it was also like the head of a family -in fact some churches use the name “family group leader” or something similar. The BTL had to often act as a counsellor meeting once a week with each person he or she discipled, plus they had to oversee or personally do any studies with new recruits going on. Any problems with members in the group was a problem for the BTL which was then a problem for the zone-leader and so forth. Again, here integrity varied between leaders. Is a weak Christian in a BTL’s group a problem because they’re not pulling their weight with church growth and commitment, or is the BTL genuinely concerned about the weak Christian for the sake of faith and their relationship with God? Pressure from upper leadership could make the latter very difficult.

 

I had the experience of the BT leader’s life style -the pressures and some of the responsibilities for maybe a year on and off, but there were many years when I was content to not be part of the BT leadership, and just exist as a member. Many of us from and in the ICOC have seen literally hordes of BTLs chewed up and spat out of the system, never to set foot in an ICOC congregation or talk to anyone remotely connected ever again.

 

The situation varies today from my knowledge, but the discipling system is still popular amongst some ICOC congregations and I think considered essential in Kip Mckean’s Soled Out Disciples Movement. There are many claims that leadership within discipling is now “healthier” but my argument is that, in light of previous large scale abuse found in discipling, and the fact there was no such system in New Testament Christianity, that it’s advisable no ICOC or ex-ICOC even think about implementing it. (I’ll discuss this in a later post where I think things like prayer partners are perhaps more appropriate). However, in my next post, I’m going to discuss the dark side of persuasion and its techniques that I warn as potential in a one-on-one discipling or shepherding culture.

Merry Christmas All

I’ll return after the Christmas break with posts that follow “About Persuasion”

About Persuasion I

(The following post has now expanded  and I’ll add two more posts, because I do tend to go on a bit. The “ICOC” refers to the “International Churches of Christ” otherwise known as “Multiplying Ministries” or  “Boston Movement” lead by Kip Mckean)

 

A few nights ago I saw a documentary on the techniques of persuasion and manipulation in society and as one can guess it covered everything from advertising, to hypnotism to cults. The main message that came across was the importance of persuasion and psychology especially in the mass media. Throughout the program were little experiments to demonstrate different aspects of persuasion.

 

One, for example, demonstrated the “power of suggestion” where the host of the show hits the streets with some plumb lines and a camera crew. He’d ask someone to dangle the plumb line from his/her outstretched hand and start with it still, then he’d talk to them with suggestions that the plumb is swinging gently (even thought they’re holding it still) and then later suggest that it becomes still, in which it did. The point was that even though the subjects believed they were holding it still they still swung it very slightly from his suggestions. That is, they had the impression the host was rocking it by his very words. In actual fact their muscles rocked it in a kind of subliminal response.

 

Another kind of power he looked at was “peer pressure” which he demonstrated in another experiment. A group of young people (in their twenties) were asked to solve a puzzle for a researcher (who was actually an actor)Amongst the young people was also an actor, and his job was to basically persuade the others in the group to *

lie. The researcher asked them before the start if any had done the puzzle before, to which all said “no”, so she left them with a stop-watch to do the puzzle. As they started the actor confessed he’d done it before, and thus helped them to complete it in record time. He then persuaded the others to go along with the deceit. And indeed they did when the researcher came back in and was astonished at how quickly they’d finished it. They all played along and assured her that no one in the group had done the puzzle before. Later on the host of the show and the researcher spoke to them individually, and they still played along except one woman who was older than they others. The game was then given away that it was a TV experiment to the embarrassment of some because they’d been caught telling a bit of a white lie on TV. They explained how they just went along with it because of peer pressure or it was the easiest way to get the results.

 

From this segment the TV show gave us images of NAZI soldiers and Hitler’s speeches and then on to Cults with images of the “Moonies” and I think the Branch Davidian cult of America amongst others (no McKean). It sited peer pressure as a major part of the control cults have, but also suggested forms of hypnotism and suggestion were used as they interviewed an expert in cults (but I can’t remember anymore details as to how exactly). One startling point the expert made was that the typical cult recruit was not some insecure, messed up person or someone with drug problems but often educated young people from affluent middle-class backgrounds, perhaps indicating we all have a need to be accepted, belong, be part of something. We feel strong in numbers, and vulnerable if isolated or alone and the cult expert interviewed also discussed how those who go against the party line could become isolated or risk rejection, and thus the organization becomes more of a cult as peer pressure intensifies.

 

Of course one of the continual issues regarding the ICOC is whether it’s regarded as a “cult” or not. Most cult-watch groups and many exmembers staunchly call it a cult but it also depends on one’s definition of a cult, which I may discuss in a later post.

What the documentary brought to my mind was in what ways were techniques of perusaion and indoctrination used or was it just “straight up” a bunch of dedicated christians trying to “restore New Testament Christianity” and fulfil the great commission in “one generation”.

 

Speaking from the experience of being in ICOC congregations for over 12 years, I’d have to say that one significant aspect brought up in the documentary is that of peer pressure. Actually that’s not entirely correct because leadership pressure was also a major factor. But it was the social pressure, the desire to conform which in many ways won over other ideals. Ironically one of the early ideals of the ICOC was the desire to not conform to religious hypocrisy and the “lukewarmness” of perceived Christianity. This was certainly played upon by Kip Mckean -the maverick preacher who offended the status quo with his “remnant theology” and evangelical zeal.

 

The problem can be seen from the flick “Silence of the Lambs” where Jodie Foster’s character challenged Hannibal to take his high skills of perception and psychology and focus them on himself instead of others. The culture of the ICOC was all about what was wrong with the “religious” Christian world -and of course the implication was the answer was the ICOC. In our own literature we had all the information about  what was doctrinally problematic with the Catholics, the Seventh Day Adventists, The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (Mormons), the Anglicans and the list goes on. Add to that Kip Mckean’s constant barrage of criticism laid upon the “mainline” Church of Christ.

 

We percieved ourselves as these heroes speaking out against the hypocrisy of religion. The problem was we became so assured that we were the heroes that the rules differed when individuals within the ICOC decided to be outspoken heroes against our own hypocrisy. The freely spoken doctrinal problems regarding mainstream Christianity contrasted with conforming social pressure within, with “you should get behind the leader”, “don’t be defensive”, “you’re proud bro’ if you don’t take leader’s advice” mantras encouraging conformity.

 

I believe in the early days people found a refreshing sense of zeal, commitment and momentum in the ICOC, and I don’t believe this is a bad thing. But that’s the nature of Christianity -there’ll be a revival, returning to basic ideals, seeking to get back to what Christians should be all about, away from institutions and traditions, and then of course after decades the revivalists tend to run out of steam and become more of an institution again, until some young mover and shaker gets indignant and starts a new revival. But I don’t believe that maketh a cult.

 

Getting back to the issue of peer or social pressure: the ICOC had it’s pressures of conformity, but it’s not just that, because these pressures will exist to some degree in any social group. It’s the power the leadership had over members’ lives, and more power means more leverage, and more leverage means more of an ability to punish the recalcitrant and encourage the conformist. And it’s the power of central control, top down via the personal one-on-one discipling system that can so effectively implement social pressure and ensure conformity on all levels.

 

Now, as for “brain-washing”, “mind-control”, “love bombing”, forms of hypnosis and the power of suggestion, I don’t believe these were so much characteristic of the ICOC,  not in my experience anyway, par one exception, which I’ll get to later. But these are key words often used in the media to sensationalize and catch reader’s attention. As far as beliefs go, I don’t believe they were far removed from those of the mainline Churches of Christ except for the structural implementation of discipling. However, we as members did have to be indoctrinated to accept these church practices and structural authority.

 

I suppose “love bombing” could relate to the closely nit fellowship, though we didn’t gather round newcomers and physically praise and hug them in some kind of “esteem building orgy”. Furthermore, some ex-members may claim they were forbidden from having any contact or limited contact with people outside the church but I didn’t find it like that either -on campus I played in bands with non-Christians and did other activities (not for evangelistic purposes), but of course I avoided those who had different life-style values to me, such as dope-smoking. I did stay with other members in a singles household, but other times, like other members, I lived in the campus dorms.

 

I suppose the extent of “brain-washing” can be seen in the propaganda literature of the ICOC -there was Upside-down magazine, Guard The Gospel (on how to study the bible with non-members), Kingdom News Net which we saw as a congregation once a month or so which sometimes had an Orwellian feel to it with constant praise of leaders and examplery “do-gooders”.

 

But the real power of persuasion was the way the bible was used. I’ll say first, though, that I still hold to Christian beliefs and I read the bible, and I believe it had sufficient guidance that could prevent any church or group like the ICOC going astray. The persuasion stems from a form of idealism, something people can believe in. Communism came from simple beliefs and ideals that there shouldn’t be large masses of exploited workers run by fat-cat capitlists. There should be equality. But we see that communist regimes take these ideals and the beliefs of people and exploit them for their own purposes.

 

So, in the ICOC, grass-roots recruitment came via personal bible studies along with introductions to the fellowship and the social context. Again, this I believe started as a great ideal -really teaching people the basics of Christianity, taking time to personally help them and meet their needs, rather than just shove a few pamphlets in their face and tell them to come on Sunday. But along these bible-studies came strings attached, or forgone conclusions: that one must accept a personal discipler in one’s life. Now here comes the touchy spot, you see, because the new recruits in Paul the Apostle’s church never had to accept a personal discipler as part of the gospel of Christ. They had to accept the teachings of New Testament Christianity along with it (in grace and faith), but there was no personal discipler.

 

Further strings attached included the belief the ICOC was pretty much the only true church. I say “pretty much” because the standard line was “there may be other churches out there doing it like us but we haven’t found any yet”. So, attached to the “only true church” belief comes the belief that if one is part of a different church, the teachings must be wrong, and therefore they are not saved. So, while studying several basic teachings with a potential recruit that are correct, these two factors are also secured in the belief system: that of accepting the discipling system, and that of the ICOC being the only true church. And they are all the more secured because the other basic teachings are so right in Christian doctine: sin, repentence, the Cross of Christ, the Great Commission, faith works and grace -all laid out and clear.

 

Another small note to add, despite the charismatic influence of Kip Mckean as the spear-header of the movement, it was never my experience that he was discussed much or held much importance in the bible studies we did with potential recruits.

 

Once someone is baptised and officially a member, it’s my argument and belief then that one-on-one discipling was the glue that held the social structure together rather than literature and propaganda (there was no monitoring on whether people read it or not). It was your discipler who pressured you to not just come to Sunday service and midweek, but to come to singles devos, bible-talk, bible-studies with non-members, and who met with you weekly to discuss your life, your studies, your bible understanding, your sin and any issues such as financial contributions, dating life, evangelism, commitment etc. It was also your discipler, who, with the zone-leader or other leader, had the final say on if and when you could date.

 

Perhaps the gospel is supposed to be the glue that holds a church together -the love for God and people, the desire to fellowship, share in communion, and some of this existed in the ICOC. However, it is my experience  and countless others that the authoritarian discipling system put a dampener on that and the pressure for growth added in the mix to the point of people missing the grace of Christ in their lives. In my next post I’ll discuss some personal experiences I’ve had regarding this system and the experience Bible Talk Leaders (BTL -no, not “bacon, tomato, lettuce”).

On the article “Anatomy of Recovery” Part II

This is a continuation on a post about the article posted on the ICOC Cooperative website titled “Anatomy of Recovery. A parable about ministries.” I’ll discuss a few more scriptures used, and then give my two-pence out there for any ex-icoc people, leaders, congregations or whoever wants to know. Personally I’m no leader my self, but I was around in the ICOC long enough (13 years),  reached the BT leader level at one stage, and I’ve been in several different cities with ICOC congregations.  Also, I haven’t found former-ICOC church websites put out reasons for continuing without one-on-one discipling. I’ve heard that there are some who don’t practice it any more, but I’ve yet to see those giving reasons and direction for their position, and I believe they need to because otherwise they may be pressured to bring it back into their congregation (or some leaders who employ discipling will cast a slur on them as “lukewarm”, “mainline theology” “liberal theology” -all the labels some have become skilled in using).

One scripture used in the article that I was a little curious about was Jeremiah 6:16: “…Stand at the Crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls”. Is there an implication to look back to glory days of the ICOC? There was a sense of unity and fast growth for many churches back then, but the scripture to me is calling people to look back to the examples of faith in the Old Testament: Abraham, Moses, David etc… But perhaps for us we should be looking back to the New Testament and how Paul, Peter, John and others gave guidance to the congregations of their day, because they are the real glory days and the first blue print of the gospel. Maybe the ICOC did some great things but it developed its own culture -and it’s not the same as the New Testament. We need to read it anew to learn again, and overcome the mind-job the ICOC has left upon us.

Interestingly, in the same paragraph the author urges us to NOT look for a new solution on the grounds that we’re not “unique” or “exceptional”, then using 1Corinthians 10:13 about how our temptations are all common to man. Again, I’m skeptical about the implications of this. Is it to say “don’t think you’re any different or special, that you can make it without us”.  Sin and temptation are common to man, but I’d argue that the culture of the ICOC became exceptional with the influence of McKeanism, use of languague and rhetoric, stats, accountability and discipling to the grass-roots level (with the common underlying sins of pride and greed that lead to heresy).  Getting back to real New Testament Christianity without these things is like a “new solution”, because many of us were spiritually raised in the ICOC and the culture became ingrained.

After leaving the ICOC some things were tough for me and I was recovering from the ICOC mindse, but reading the scriptures became exciting again, because I didn’t need to read it with a filter on. There was no more politics or leader’s interpretations or adapting of scriptures to ICOC culture to mess with it. (However, I spent a whole year just reading proverbs and psalms, because reading some things in the New Testament was still hard in that I could still hear the way some leaders manipulated scriptures in my head and that bothered me.)

Elsewhere in the article “personal responsibility” is discussed, using the example of David in Psalm 51. Firstly, don’t assume because things may not seem to be going well that you’re in the same boat as David at this point in his life -being convicted and repentant after committing adultery and plotting murder. There will be times in everyone’s life when we mess up big, but it’s not every time a religious leader pulls out psalm 51. David didn’t spend his whole life feeling this way though he had a conscience. There were times when he was full of praise and confidence in God and that God wasn’t down on him, (and times when he was in fear from enemies, times when he was indignant of those who oppose God etc etc…)

If one has accepted responsibility for a congregation, then that’s a major responsibility and one that I’ve never undertaken. However, one interpretation I’ve seen of the pitfalls of the past ICOC is shepherds who failed in the responsibility to protect their flock against the abuses of a centralised and discipling system. I have also heard of conflicts between different types of leaders over this issue such as between the elders and evangelists or zone leaders who were under great pressure. I know the system now is supposedly different but is it really responsible to allow a possibility for these tendencies to return? I argue that the responsible thing is to not sign on with the ICOC Cooperative because of its discipling.

There are more scriptures and issues within the article that I could discuss, but I’ll just throw in my two pence in the form of my advice. I’m not going to pull out many scriptures with lofty biblical examplesto puff up my message -you can find scriptures for yourself.

So, in response to “Anatomy of Recovery” I say examine yourself to see if you’re in the faith, don’t let other leaders imply you’re at some certain spiritual stage (and if you deny it your “defensive” etc…). Test yourself and respond to the results appropriately. If you were in the ICOC for a long time I’m sure you’re mature enough now and don’t need  someone to hold your hand. If you need help, make prudent judgments on who would be good to get help from.

If you do your homework, work hard in building your faith (and that of your ministry), you won’t be susceptible to religious games or rhetoric, or bullying or manipulation. But if you don’t get your own conviction you’re in danger of Paul’s warnings in Galatians -people can take advantage in the religious world, and they often get better at it. If you’re insecure, unsure how you are spiritually, still confused over the past issues and mindset, then people with skill in religious language will get the upperhand. Those who have no scruples unfortunately have this advantage and they can knock your confidence from under you. The whole bible is a continuous account of the battle between faithful prophets and false prophets where the latter learn how to spin the language so well for their own political purposes.